On Al Sharpton's MSNBC show today, former DNC Chairman Ed Rendell dared congressional Republicans to recall Hillary Clinton to testify about Benghazi. Calling Clinton a "tough cookie," Rendell vowed that "Hillary will put them in short pants."

Paging Camille Paglia . . . Rendell surely thought he was paying Hillary a compliment.  But is this really the Hillary persona that Dems want to project: that of a woman who makes little boys out of grown men?

In a complete non-surprise given her career track record, Hillary Clinton's definition of "cooperation" with requests to turn over whatever emails she unilaterally deigned could be seen meant giving them to the State Despartment on paper.

That's lots and lots of paper, 55,000 pages in all, some of them double-sided, all seemingly part of a conscious strategy to deliberately slow down the process at taxpayers' expense. It's quite easy to believe that if a Republican or conservative politician engaged in these tactics instead of turning over digital files, the press would be giving this a lot more exposure. Beyond that, a person with IT experience has informed me that Mrs. Clinton may have chosen to turn in paper copies of those emails because digital copies might have exposed damning information.

CNN's Gloria Borger asserted on Wednesday's Wolf program that the latest revelation involving a potential conflict of interest for Hillary Clinton – her e-mail exchanges with Sidney Blumenthal on Libya when she was secretary of state – wasn't much of a scandal: "I don't think this rises to a huge level, but it does show you that when you've been in public life for decades, you do collect a lot of people...who still want to get your ear." This came moments after Borger acknowledged that this issue was "kind of embarrassing."

The New York Times has published two articles on the relationship between former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton and longtime confidant Sidney Blumenthal. It has been known for some time that Blumenthal, barred by the Obama White House from working at State, nevertheless ran "a secret, private intelligence network" for Mrs. Clinton's benefit, "apart from the State Department’s own Bureau of Intelligence and Research."

The Times also published certain of the emails exchanged between the two, and either missed or ignored a major revelation contained in three of them. The national Republican Party didn't:

While Chris Matthews's April 21 interview with President Obama was not brimming with obsequious fawning nor visible leg tingles, he nonetheless squandered an opportunity that a more assertive journalist might have taken to scrutinize President Obama, particularly on his handling of the Iranian nuclear negotiations.